Central Information Commission
Atindra Chakraborty vs Department Of Defence Production on 18 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP
Atindra Chakraborty ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Gun & Shell Factory
Cossipore, Kolkata ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.04.2024 FA : 28.05.2024 SA : 02.08.2024
CPIO : 17.05.2024 FAO : 06.07.2024 Hearing : 17.02.2026
Date of Decision: 17.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
A. Provide the date of the original DPC meeting for promotion from H/Sk. -1 to MCM at GSF held in the year 2022.
B. Provide the date of the original DPC meeting for promotion from H/Sk. -1 to MCM at GSF held in the year 2023.CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 1 of 13
C. Provide the name of eligible employees for promotion from H/Sk. - 1 to MCM in the panel which was submitted during to the original DPC meeting held in 2022. D. Provide the name of eligible employees for promotion from H/Sk. - 1 to MCM in the panel which was submitted during to the original DPC meeting held in 2023. E. Provide all proposals for H/Sk. - 1 to MCM promotion in GSF, which were submitted by different sections to the DPC in the year 2022. F. Provide all proposals for H/Sk. - 1 to MCM promotion in GSF, which were submitted by different sections to the DPC in the year 2023. G. Provide the proposals for H/Sk. - 1 to MCM promotion recommendations in GSF, which were submitted by DPC to the DCC/ APRROVAL AUTHORITY in the year 2022.
H. Provide The proposals for H/Sk. - 1 to MCM promotion recommendations in GSF, which were submitted by DPC to the DCC/ APRROVAL AUTHORITY in the year 2023.
I. Please provide the DPC meeting dates for promotion from H/Sk .- 1 to MCM at GSF which were held in the year 2022.
J. Please provide the DPC meeting dates for promotion from H/Sk .- 1 to MCM at GSF which were held in the year 2023
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
A. 23-11-2022 B. 22-12-2023 C. Your name existed in the select list of 71 employees for promotion from HS - I to MCM for the year 2023. But, the names of other employees cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
D. The information, as asked for, cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 2 of 13
E. No proposal available. Promotion was given based on seniority. F. No proposal available. Promotion was given based on seniority. G. The query made is not clear / specific within the context of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Meaning of 'DCC / APPROVAL AUTHORITY' is not understood. H. The query made is not clear / specific within the context of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Meaning of 'DCC / APPROVAL AUTHORITY' is not understood I. 23-11-2022 J. 22-12-2023
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO on points C, G and H, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 06.07.2024 stated as under: -
"Query No. C: A copy of the select list of the candidates considered for promotion to the post of MCM through DPC for the year 2023 is enclosed, after severing the details of other employees in terms of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2023 and New Delhi Chief Information Commissioner's Decision dated 05-06- 2017 in the matter of Mr. T. C. Gupta - Vs - CPIO & ITO (HQ) (Vig.). Query No. G: Copy enclosed.
Query No. H: Copy enclosed."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.08.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Uddipan Mukherjee, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided complete information including the DPC minutes after severing the names and personal details of other candidates who participated in the Departmental Promotion CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 3 of 13 Examination. The CPIO further endorsed their latest written submissions dated 14.02.2026 which are taken on record and are reproduced as under, for reference:
"As directed vide reference above, the written submission pertaining to the notice of hearing with reference to the Second Appeal under RTI Act, 2005 preferred by Shri Atindra Chakraborty is as follows:
1 Shri Atindra Chakraborty, Mastercraftsman (Machinist). Ticket No. 641. Shell (M) Section, Personnel No. 6966 had forwarded an RTI application dated nil, requesting to provide him with some information on review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the post of MCM for the years 2022 and 2023 2 That at Query No. A and B of the RTI application, the Appellant sought the dates of original DPC meeting for promotion from Highly Skilled Grade to Mastercraftsman (MCM) held in the year of 2022 and 2023 In reply, CPIO provided the dates of original DPC meeting for promotion from Highly Skilled Grade-I to MCM held in the year of 2022 and 2023 as 23-11-2022 and 22-12-2023 respectively.
3 That at Query No. C and D of the RTI application, the Applicant sought "the name of eligible employees for promotion from HS-I to MCM in the panel which was submitted during the original DPC meeting held in 2022 and 2023
4.In reply, CPIO informed the Appellant that his name existed in the select list of 71 employees for promotion from HS-I to MCM for the year 2023. But, the names of other employees cannot be provided in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
5.That with respect to Query No. E and F, the Appellant sought all proposals for HS-1 to MCM promotion in GSF, which were submitted by different sections to the DPC in the year 2022 and 2023 In reply, CPIO informed that no proposal was available Promotion was granted CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 4 of 13 based on seniority.
6. That with respect to Query No. G and H. the Appellant sought the proposals for HS-I to MCM promotion recommendations in GSF which were submitted by DPC to the DCC/ APPROVAL AUTHORITY in the year 2022 and 2023 5 In reply, CPIO stated that the queries made are not clear/specific within the context of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Meaning of DCC/APPROVAL AUTHORITY' was not understood That with respect to Query No. I and J, the Appellant sought the DPC meeting dates for the promotion from HS-I to MCM at GSF which were held in the year 2022 and 2023 In reply, CPIO provided the dates as 23-11-2022 and 22-12-2023 respectively 7 Thereafter, the said Shri Atindra Chakraborty preferred the First Appeal dated 28-05-2024 to the then First Appellate Authority (FAA) of GSF. Cossipore, requesting to provide the following information
1. In response to the CPIO's RTI reply Query No. C- Provide the details under section 4(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. In response to the CPIO's RTI reply query No. G and H Copy of the proposals /recommendations submitted by DPC to the Approving Authority for promotion from HS-1 to MCM in the year 2022 and 2023
8. After due examination of the RTI application and the CPIO's reply thereto, the reply of FAA For the Paint 1. A copy of the select list of the candidates considered for promotion to the post of MCM through DPC for the year 2023 is enclosed, after severing the details of other employees in terms of Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2023 and New Delhi Chief Information Commissioner's Decision dated 05-06- 2017 in the matter of Mr. T. C. Gupta-Vs-CPIO & ITO (HQ) (Vig.) CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 5 of 13 For the point 2 Desired copies were provide by the FAA. The Appellant, not being satisfied with the reply of the FAA, moved the office of Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) with a request to provide proper official documents & information's to understand the reasons behind the review DPC and Notional Promotion that was implemented to promote him as he was financially affected due to the DPC and the Notional Promotion Commissioner. In this regard, the following submission is made before the Hon'ble Chief Information
(a) Change of stand in the 2 Appeal - Not maintainable The Appellant has materially changed the nature of his original RTI queries at the stage of preferring the 2nd Appeal. Before the CPIO and the FAA, the Appellant merely sought for the information on DPC for the year of 2022 and 2023 for promotion to MCM However, before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, the Appellant has Raised issues of "reasons behind Review DPC and notional promotion Alleged of financial loss due to Review DPC and notional promotion Sought justification and redressal It is well settled that new issues cannot be introduced at the Appeal stage. Hon'ble CIC, in Its decision dated 07-03-2017 in the appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2016/001136/MP, in the matter of Shri Mohammad Ali Shaheed-Vs- CPIO, Aligarh Muslim University, held that if is not open for an information seeker to enlarge the scope of his RTI application at appeal stage. Thus, the instant 2 Appeal is liable to be rejected on this ground alone
(b) Doctrine of Severability under Section 10 of RTI Act, 2005:
The Appellant was provided with the documents (as available at Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore) related to DPC for the years of 2022 and 2023 for promotion CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 6 of 13 to the post of MCM after severing the personal information of other employees. The CPIO was of the view that the documents contained the personal information of other employees. Hence, Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 was invoked to protect third-party privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 CPIO submits that the DPC minutes contain the assessment and Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) gradings, Vigilance/Disciplinary Status and evaluation by DPC in respect of other employees which constitute personal information of third parties. Therefore, the CPIO provided the redacted minutes by invoking Section 10 (Severability) to protect third-party privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
(c) Compliance with The Hon'ble CIC decisions:
The Hon'ble CIC, in his Order dated 13-01-2011 in the matter of Amit Kumar Singh -VS- CPIO, Office of the Chief Commissioner of CGST & CS, Central Excise Lucknow Zone, Lucknow held that we cannot direct the CPIO to disclose the overall ACR gradings of other individual officers considered by the DPCE. We, however, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the photocopy of the file notings the minutes of the OP, If not provided already after severing the ACR gradings of all other officers except his own"
The Hon'ble CIC, in his decision dated 06-06-2017 in the matter of Mr. T. C. Gupta (Appellant) -Vs-CPIO & ITO (HQ) (Vig.) (Respondent), had disposed off the Appeal directing that Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide information regarding the DPC minutes to the Appellant after severing the details of the other employees in the DPC minutes after duly complying with the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act. 2005.CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 7 of 13
The Hon'ble CIC, in his decision dated 07-11-2022 in the matter of Shri Mit Kumar Singh V CPIO, Office of the Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX, UP directed that In the event, any additional information is available to be provided on points 2 & 3, the CPIOs shall provide the same to the Appellant after redacting the portions hit by the exemption of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The redaction of record if any, shall be carved out in compliance with Section 10 of the RTI Act
(d) RTI Act. 2005 cannot be used as a tool for service disputes:
The Hon'ble CIC, in his Order dated 19-12-2017 in the matter of Mr. S. P. Goyal vs CPIO & ITO, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai held that The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Sh Vikram Singh va. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012, Sh Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal va. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes"
In view of the above, issues relating to correctness of promotion, review DPC outcomes, or financial loss due to notional promotion fall squarely within the jurisdiction of appropriate service tribunals/courts, not under the RTI framework
(e) No public interest established The file related to promotion of Mastercraftsman (Machinist) for the year 2023 contains category (whether SC/ST), PWBD status, performance report (containing performance assessment and remarks of Divisional Officer & Group Officer), vigilance clearance and disciplinary records etc of other employees which are all personal information in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court Orders as mentioned below. Disclosure of personal information of other employees would not fulfil any larger public interest.CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 8 of 13
Some decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 'disclosure of personal information are Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., ((2013) 1 SCC 212) upheld the decision of the Hon'ble CIC and the Hon'ble High Court declining the prayer for furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner: The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right"
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 31-08-2017 in the matter of Canara Bank Vs CS Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2000, exemplified the scope of Section 8(1)(1) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion, date of his/her joining to the Branch CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 9 of 13 where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. in our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No. 1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature: secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No. 1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central information Commission and the High Court as for the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent.
Further, the relevant portion of the judgement dated 13-11-2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 is as under:
"59 Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, Babies, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information Such personal information is entitled to protection CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 10 of 13 from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive RTI Act, 2005 is not a grievance redressal mechanism."
The Appellant's prayer before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner is not confined to seeking information, but is aimed at raising questions over Review DPC procedure.
Notional promotion effect.
Alleged financial loss This squarely converts the RTI proceeding into a service grievance and adjudication forum, which is not permissible under law. The scope of the RTI Act, 2005 is limited to providing information held by or under the custody and control of a public authority. The RTI mechanism is not intended for redressal of grievances or resolution of service-related claims. Therefore, the request made by the Appellant in his 2nd Appeal cannot be considered within the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hon'ble CIC, in his decision dated 08-01-2019 in the Appeal No. CIC/UIICL/A/2017/167414-BJ in the matter of Mr. T. C. Sadhwani Vs CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not a redress of grievance mechanism. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
Therefore, even if the appellant is aggrieved with review DPC, promotion order or financial implications, his remedy lies before the appropriate Service Tribunal / Court and not under RTI Act, 2005.
In view of the foregoing facts and settled legal position, it is respectfully submitted that:
The CPIO and the FAA have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 11 of 13 RTI Act, 2005 Adequate and lawful information has already been provided to the Appellant. The Second Appeal is devoid of merit, misconceived, and an attempt to use the RTI Act. 2005 to pursue a service grievance.
It is therefore most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Commissioner may dismiss the Second Appeal and uphold the replies furnished by the CPIO and the order passed by the FAA."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO as well as FAA have provided adequate response, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, on being queried the CPIO clarified during the hearing that there is no provision for making proposals with respect to DPC recommendations, as referred to in the RTI application by the appellant. Further, the Commission observes that the Appellant in the grounds of the second appeal has requested for proper official documents and information to understand the reasons behind the review DPC etc. which were not part of the original RTI and hence cannot be acceded to. The written comprehensive submissions given by the CPIO dated 14.02.2026 are taken on record and found to be addressed to Appellant also.
Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 17.02.2026 CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 12 of 13 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Gun & Shell Factory Cossipore, A Unit of Advance Weapons & Equipment India Ltd, Cossipore, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700002
2. Atindra Chakraborty CIC/DODEF/A/2024/125557/DODFP Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)